Blog

Written by Georgios Nikolakos*

Strategy is a term that etymologically has its roots in Ancient Greece and its original meaning was directly linked to military terminology, the art of military command and the necessary planning so that there is optimal use of animate and inanimate resources with the ultimate aim of achieving the set goals.

Referring mainly to national defense, we could say that strategy is the direction and scope of a country's defense activities in the long term, which ensures a competitive advantage for it, through the arrangement of its resources within a changing security environment, with the aim of responding to the needs and expectations of its citizens. Its ultimate goal is the preservation of collective intellectual assets, the preservation of culture, freedom and dignity.

Let us not forget what Kondylis wrote. “The fundamental connection between self-preservation and society is evident in the simple fact that no social order can exist in the long term unless it is able to guarantee the collective and individual security of the vast majority of its members.”

The changing security environment is one of the main characteristics of the strategy, which is shaped mainly by Turkey's revisionist stance, which projects revolutionary and hegemonic claims, but also by the unstable international system due to revisions aimed at changing the hierarchical regime. Greece, as is easy to see, still has defensive doctrines and ideologies about the threat dating back to World War II and a passive diplomatic strategy based on the "thesfatos", "we claim nothing but we concede nothing" and forces us to run behind the facts.

It would therefore be safe to conclude that Greece is faced today with an urgent need for a strong deterrent defense capability. It needs a new doctrine, a new strategy that moves towards the future, aiming for something new, dynamic, efficient, effective and capable of ensuring the country's defense. However, this dictates a defense policy based on existing data and goals and not on wishful thinking. This means that we must assess the country's defense capability in terms of the immediate threat.

No treaty or international law can protect us if we are not able to defend ourselves, or to be able to inflict such a blow on the opponent, which ends up discouraging and preventing any aggressive disposition.

– So what should the next day be for the country's defense after the continued Turkish provocation?

– What is the country's current defense capability after the successive cuts in the funds of the Armed Forces (AF)?

The answer to these crucial questions must be given by the Government, which institutionally bears the responsibility, according to the current legal framework, but also by the political world as a whole in its respective capacity. In my opinion, however, the political leadership of the country is unable to understand elementary defense issues and at the same time does not realize what the appropriate diplomatic tactics are for our country.

As for the military leadership, it is not going backwards either. It has been locked into outdated doctrines, rearguard action, and "platoon-level" demonstrations for the last five years, in order to maintain a defense system that is clearly limping and may have led to a "surface" operational force completely unrelated to the threat.

But who will do the assessment? The risk assessment? The military leadership? There have been enlightened leaders who tried but found themselves outside the military because they were not liked.

Unfortunately, in the democratic Greece of the 21st century, the final approval of the selection of the Chiefs does not go through a relevant committee of the Parliament after hearing the candidate. The term of office of the Chief does not have a predetermined duration. Although the social role of the Armed Forces with regard to the external security of the country is primary, the Chiefs are not equal interlocutors with the political leadership on a number of issues of utmost importance concerning national security, nor do they have institutional responsibility.

The army does not have its own grammar. The role of the Armed Forces is governed and controlled by the logic of the political goals of a society. The Chiefs are agents of political power along with the rest of the state organs as provided for by our democratic system. If the approval of the Chiefs "went through parliament", it would be their consequent obligation to inform the Greek parliament about the real situation of the Armed Forces and the country's defense capabilities, that is, an assessment of the risks, an assessment of National Defense.

One wonders, why hasn't this been done before?

It is convenient for everyone, especially for politicians. The political leadership, for understandable reasons, avoids approaching and determining the level of desired national capabilities and determining the amount of human resources and financial resources that will actually be allocated, taking into account the demographic problem and the economic situation. It does not want to commit. Unfortunately, however, without these data, it is not possible to determine with scientifically proven approaches the mission and role of the Armed Forces, within the parameters of space and time, and to adapt them to confront threats in accordance with socio-politically determined goals.

Dangers and threats remain around us and are changing. New ones appear every day. Defense, security, the integrity of the national territory and the countering of external threats to sovereignty are the duty of all of us. Those who know must not remain silent. The deterrent reputation of the Armed Forces is essential to ensuring the collective freedom of our people. However, realism and a change in philosophy are required to “not underestimate your opponents”, and to consider that “strength is not everything”.

* Georgios Nikolakos is a Lieutenant General (retd). He is a graduate of the Department of International and European Studies of the University of Macedonia (PAMAK) with a certificate of specialization from the same university in crisis management. He also holds a Master's Degree in Diplomatic and Strategic Studies.